Why are Modern Fighter Jets Slower than 1960s?

[@erikgranqvist3680]

Todays fighters can usually hold a higher speed without afterburners, and therefore hold a high average speed when traveling towards whatever goal, compared to yesteryears jet fighters.

[@redacted2713]

Examples are F22, Typhoon, Su35, Gripen, Rafaele, those aircrafts can supercruise, going supersonic without using afterburner

[@trisjack82]

@@bobthebuilder1360 that’s the F35

[@thrillville7775]

yall are sum nerds im just watching this cuz it’s valid asf

[@Boeing_hitsquad]

@@redacted2713 even without supercruise, the F-35 can fly to longer ranges faster than even the F-22 by flying sub sonic with extremely good fuel economy. No need for aerial refueling.

[@thunderbird1921]

Honestly, this all makes the F-86 Sabre look even more incredible for its era. An early 1950s jet with amazing maneuverability, astonishing firepower, and even able to break the sound barrier if flown in certain maneuvers (I believe Jackie Cochran, a female test pilot for the US Air Force, was one of those who successfully did this). An absolutely incredible aircraft.

[@Sacto1654]

The thing is that older jet fighters can only achieve those very high speeds on very short "dash" flights. Flights that consume a lot of fuel, cut the life of the jet engine(s), and make themselves a huge infrared target. Real combat experience shows that you don't need that high a top speed, but lower infrared signature and a faster constant cruising speed.

[@ICECAPPEDSKY]

Idk if the older aircraft have drop tanks or midair refueling they can retain that high speed for a long time. Plus the higher you go the greater your fuel efficiency will be

[@caturlifelive]

Make sense

[@Sacto1654]

@@ICECAPPEDSKY I don't know--running on full afterburner really consumes fuel.

[@spiffdandy77]

an F35 can only do Mach 1.6 for 50 seconds without causing permanent damage to the aircraft.

[@crazynavyhm]

You’re completely wrong my guy lol blowing shi out ur azz 💯 keep living the dream though in your reality old timer

[@sgtmayhem7567]

The first use of an airplane in war wasn’t in WWI, it was during the Italo-Turkish War. On October 23, 1911 an Italian pilot made a one hour reconnaissance flight over enemy positions near Tripoli, Libya in a Blériot XI monoplane.

[@walangchahangyelingden8252]

Also the first air bombing happened during that war, when an Italian pilot dropped a grenade from his plane.

[@ibrahimbasaraka2695]

And also first surface to air kill was there

[@SparkyDaProtogen]

@@ibrahimbasaraka2695 *insert red Baron*

[@chickendude1695]

@@stamp503 It appears you are mistaken

[@pato-san3621]

@@stamp503 it appears you are mistaken

[@timothyhines7845]

Another point completely overlooked by this video is that Vietnam era fighters were designed to quickly get to altitude and intercept incoming long-range bombers. A completely different thought train. Air to Air was actually a secondary role.

[@notmenotme614]

It was the same with the English Electric Lightening of the 60s and 70s. It was designed to scramble and climb as quick as it could. It was ridiculously quick even for today, but would use all its fuel in 40 minutes. For interceptors they often have to launch an air to air refuelling tanker too.

[@jars6230]

But even then they wouldn't do that at max speed or burn, unless they had waited until the bombers were close, which sort of goes against the principle of making them quick so they get get to bombers fast, bit.

[@MrAranton]

@@jars6230 Back in the cold war detection technology wasn't that great yet, which gave interceptors in Europe very little warning time. They didn't have more or less constant satellite surveillence. And at the time is was possible to literally stay "under the radar", by flying extremely low. In case of a surprise attack launched from East-German air-fields, supersonic Warsaw-pact bombers carrying nukes would have been able to reach most West-German population centres less than ten minutes after entering NATO airspace. In this battle field there is no "waiting until the bombers are close", because "close" - well actually VERY FUCKING CLOSE - is where would be launching.

[@fazole]

@@jars6230 The Genie was a NUCLEAR air to air missile, so accuracy wasn't as necessary to hit the target.

[@thomasp506]

It wasn't really overlooked by the video any more than it was by the people using these planes. They might have been originally designed as high-speed interceptors, but that's not how they ended up being used. The F4 was used in Vietnam as an air superiority fighter and ground attack craft, regardless of what it was originally designed for.

[@p39483]

Speed is important when your mission is to scramble and intercept within a couple hundred miles. Early fighters were interceptors because they had guns and short range missiles. They could also identify and photograph enemy aircraft being where they shouldn't. Now long range missiles with better guidance and control have largely replaced the intercept role.

[@msgtpauldfreed]

Exactly!

[@laughingdaffodils5450]

It's interesting you mention long range missiles though, as they have indeed become much more important (to the point where anything else is considered obsolete.) And if you're really just slinging long range missiles at each other, you're not dogfighting so turn rate is much less important, while speed (not necessarily top speed, but actual deployment velocity) becomes much more important. Fire the same missile from two aircraft, one going mach 1 while the other is going mach 2, and the missile from the second will get to the target quicker, and have greater effective range as well. Turn rate might still be important for defending from missiles, but if can fly higher and faster you can launch first and might not need to defend at all. Still, a 'top speed' that can only be achieved briefly and at the cost of most of your fuel is probably less important than a high sustainable cruise speed.

[@GaiusCaesarAugustusGermanicus.]

I agree, I don’t believe flight endurance would be an issue especially with capabilities of aerial refueling. Being able to target and eliminate opposing forces from longer distances offers an greater advantage.

[@laughingdaffodils5450]

@@GaiusCaesarAugustusGermanicus. Keep in mind that tankers are big obvious targets for the other side.

[@GaiusCaesarAugustusGermanicus.]

@@laughingdaffodils5450 the big tankers are great targets but I’m pretty sure the branches of the military have SOPs in place to reduce the chances of them being targeted. Beside that, F18’s can fill the same roll as the traditional aerial tanker

[@kingtigerbooks1162]

The F-4 Phantom is my favorite jet. It's had an interesting record. I know a few retired F-4 pilots and the stories they tell are incredible. The books the retired Phantom drivers write are mind-blowing. These are my 3 favorite aviation books: - Topgun by Dan Pederson - Scream of Eagles by Robert Wilcox - Great Fighter Jets of the Galaxy 1 by Tim Gibson

[@prateekmahapatra1789]

its a trophy for hunter mig-21s lol

[@External2737]

Great plane, but talk to the mechanics. The cost per flight hour vs. an F-16 is why they were retired.

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

@@External2737 Is that today's inflated dollars or before? Part of that is because F4 systems were repaired on station where as F16 electronic are just exchanging boxes. What is the cost of maintaing an adequate supply of boxes close enough to maintain operations plus a depot of boxes to maintain sustained operations? An old WCS mechanic here. Of course the ground crew don't need to be terribly bright these days. Sorry that was uncalled for.

[@External2737]

@@patrickgriffitt6551 Cost as in maintenance hours overall. The F-4 was a gigapet requiring a lot of care and attention. e.g., the often replaced battery under a seat that required acrobatics to change. The F-16 is able to fly many more missions per day due to the reduced maintenance demands and that multiplies the force.

[@userb3nje909]

If you can, pick up "War for the Hell of it" by Ed Cobleigh. Great read.

[@perpetualjon]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the concept of "supercruise". That is the ability to travel at supersonic speeds without the use of an afterburner. My understanding is that when this is achieved, the range is greatly increased because the aerodynamics of supersonic flight are more efficient than subsonic flight (as long as the afterburner isn't employed). Maybe I'm wrong about this though. I know that the F22 can supercruise but the string of JSF aircraft cannot...

[@northropi2027]

Supercruise still substantially increases fuel burn compared to normal cruise. Obviously not as bad as AB, but it's still far from free.

[@JAnx01]

Well, the main feature of the F-35's engine is that it burns cooler, so you can't have it all.

[@Boeing_hitsquad]

Having listened to F-22A pilots talk about this, no.

[@glassfullofmilk]

@@northropi2027 It depends on what type of Specific Range you are after, yes super cruise will get you more range per fuel burnt and is also useful kinematically for lobbing missiles further and the decrease of Drag above transonic speeds is also useful for increasing Specific Range without use of IR intense afterburners. But as far as Max Endurance its not particularly great for that.

[@bigblue6917]

Actually the English Electric Lightning could supercruise and it was a contemporary of the F-4 Phantom II

[@gnrl0]

4:42 No matter how good the aircraft is, the main limit is a human limit. As soon as you increase the speed, the turn rate decreases. If you want to keep turn rate high, you have to increase the load factor (until the pilot passes out). Turn rate (tr) formula: tr = (g/v) * sqrt{ (n^2) - 1 } with g: gravitational acceleration, v: velocity, n: load factor As you can see, v is in the denominator and the load factor n has to increase if you want to keep the turn rate constant. So we are probably never going to see an aircraft at supersonic speeds with turning capabilities of a subsonic aircraft, as long as there is a pilot.

[@Dewydidit]

Remove the meat concerns and just measure the wing load at high speed turns and watch it exceed material capacity quickly.

[@trespire]

@@Dewydidit Anti ICBM interceptor missiles are designed for over 100g.

[@warpdrive9229]

AI operated fighter aircrafts can do this! But we are yet to see one.

[@moistman6930]

@@warpdrive9229 nut that may be to predictable, and vulnerable to SAMs and AAMs after a couple of years, so that new ones can be developed that can predict or can recognise the algorithm or code that the E/A uses, making the airframe incredibly vulnerable to missiles.

[@MalfosRanger]

@@trespire A missile is structurally simple compared to an aircraft. There are a myriad of subsystems in aircraft that are not necessary in missiles which are not robust enough for the g-loads experienced by rocket propelled tubes beyond the pilot.

[@sgtmayhem7567]

Thank you for the clear & concise explanation of why modern fighters are slower than the jets of the 1960’s. However the video requires one small correction. The first use of an airplane in war wasn’t WWI, it was during one of its dress rehearsals zthe Italo-Turkish War of 1911-1912. On October 23, 1911 by an Italian, Captain Carlo Piazza he made a one hour reconnaissance flight over enemy positions near Tripoli, Libya in a Blériot XI monoplane.

[@jackdaugaard-hansen4512]

You know that the The actual reason why aircraft don’t fly faster is because aluminium will soften at speeds above 1650mph or roughly in that range, if you want to go faster you must built the plane out of steel or titanium, the SR 71 and XB70 where both made from titanium while the mig 25 and mig 31 where both made from nickel steel, the problem is that titanium is expensive and nearly twice as heavy as aluminium and steel though cheaper then aluminium is 3 times as heavy meaning that performance outside of speed is effected, that’s why the mig 25 has a combat radius of less then 300km and a payload of 2000kg not to mention a low thrust to weight ratio

[@neilbryancolumna8258]

S-400 to EA-18G: You can run but you can't hide. EA-18G: I can run and disable your radar.

[@ridhobaihaqi144]

With AGM-88 HARM

[@neilbryancolumna8258]

@@ridhobaihaqi144 SAM site is cooked.

[@jb76489]

Russian air defenses can’t even deal with Turkish drones

[@carboncompound759]

@@ridhobaihaqi144 EA-18G: *laughs in AN/ALQ-99 low band jamming pods*

[@CrayonEater255]

@@jb76489 TB2 moment

[@chardtomp]

I believe the F-4 was designed to be a high-speed bomber interceptor as opposed to an air superiority fighter. Its mission was to get out there fast to intercept an inbound nuclear bomber strike as far away as possible. Speed was the main consideration when it was being developed. As that mission has become a much lower priority so has the need for Mach 2+ capable aircraft.

[@tornagawn]

Interesting…..there was a flight based at RAF Leuchars in Scotland doing just this - intercepting air intrusions

[@ReisskIaue]

German F-4s were also mainly used as interceptors, at least after the fall of the Iron Curtain, maybe earlier (although it could carry A-bombs and would have used, if Cold War would have turned south).

[@Egilhelmson]

The F-100 series were designed as the interceptors, catching incoming aircraft at maximum distance. The F-4 was designed for other things, but it was discovered that they had so much engine that they could dogfight with the best high energy/low weight Soviet fighters, too.

[@chardtomp]

@@Egilhelmson The F-4 went through a rather torturous path to production with the intended mission and specifications changing many times but the final specification presented to McDonnell Douglas by the U.S. Navy was for an all-weather, high-speed interceptor for fleet defense. At the time the navy's main concern was fleet defense against nuclear attack. The navy already had the excellent F-8 Crusader as an air superiority fighter. The F-4 was basically forced on the U.S. Air Force by then Defense Secretary Robert Macnamara who wanted a standard fighter for all services. As the Air Force's requirements were quite different from the Navy's this required several more modifications to the aircraft. Even then, it was largely hamstrung in its air superiority role by the fact that it didn't have a gun. The F-106 Delta Dart was the Air Force's all- weather, high-speed interceptor. The other 100s were designed for a multitude of other missions.

[@insideoutsideupsidedown2218]

You would be correct

[@paulbrooks4395]

Max speeds were also part of the Cold War philosophy of Bomber Interceptions. The Tomcat was designed to intercept both bombers and missiles before they could get within range to either launch or deal damage. The idea being that, the faster the Tomcat could get towards the closing enemy, the greater the odds that all the bombers and missiles could be shot down and left for the defensive systems on the fleet ships. If the bombers could be shot down, not a single weapon would be released from said bomber. Bomber Interception was also important for interceptors before the proliferation of ICBMs and still played a smaller role even after their deployment. Even so, bombers could still pose a threat in the Nuclear Triad, and it was always important to have "fast" intercept capabilities, in the event an enemy tried to get closer with nuclear bombers. The reasons are the same, to destroy enemy bombers and weapons before they cross into sovereign territory. Even to the present day, NATO has to conduct bomber interceptions of Russian planes, as they continue to approach airspace where they aren't welcome.

[@brianwright9514]

While high maximum speed doesn't have a lot of military utility, having a high speed capability does. While today's fighters have a lower maximum speed than older aircraft, this is a total system limitation. Today's aircraft far exceed older generations in thrust-weight ratio and have the capability of spending far more time above Mach 1, which has a great degree of utility in the modern battlespace.

[@ragingmcqueen]

Oh yea? Wow that's so fascinating

[@thor923]

Yes, and with super cruise the fuel efficiency problem is solved

[@brianwright9514]

@@thor923 I'm not sure solved is the word I would use. Improved is a better description. They're not using afterburner to stay above transonic, but they still require a lot of dry-thrust to do it, so their burn rate is still pretty high.

[@mikedelta1441]

Speed is extremely important in BVR, and this video is wrong. The amount of energy the interceptor(missile) has the greater the range and probability of intercept, and for this reason modern air superiority fighters are just as fast as they were 50 years ago. F-22, Su-27, MiG-29, Su-57, F-15, J-20, Typhoon all can exceed Mach 2.0. Only strike fighters are getting comparatively slower because range far outclasses speed in terms of priority when attacking ground targets. This distinction between Air-Superiority, Multi-role, Strike-fighter is at the heart of this discussion but not even mentioned because I suspect it would de-bunk the entire premise of this video.

[@verdebusterAP]

As modern missiles are substantially faster , far more agile and significantly more accurate than missiles designed in the 1960s speed is moot

[@whosjoe9123]

0:30 “It all makes sense if you’re high” That can apply to most things

[@B-52H]

Cut to B 52 pilots being given military grade speed pill so they don't fall asleep then having to take another pill so the speed wares off

[@JLK89]

I remember the old f22 demo game my brother and I played. The afterburner was fun, but you could see the fuel gauge falling... I was jealous of the harriers though. Takeoff and landing was a pita.

[@gigachad5563]

I have always wondered this.

[@ibanezjimjim666]

7:01 has got to be the most awesome footage of the Raptor I have ever seen. The vapor trails going in 3 different directions in slow motion is just visually stunning.

[@hotstepper887]

Rolling down the runway throttles open wide see the mighty Phantom sway from side to side airborne again without a blip It's just one more aborted trip but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdrs AFC Went to early briefing climbed into the Kite opened up the throttles and roared into the night leaving the flare path far behind It's dark outside, but we don't mind cos we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC Rolling down the runway throttle open wide see the mighty Falcon sway from side to side airborne again with just 9 G I wish I had a nav with me (!) but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC Rolling down the runway throttles open wide see the mighty Jaguar sway from side to side airborne again, but only just It's not much fun with F*** all thrust but we're pressing on regardless for the wg cdr's AFC GIVE ME BUCCANEERS! They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the Jaguar Unless you refer to the car The car is a groundhog The aircraft is half frog Don't give me the Jaguar. Give me Buccaneers They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the Harrier jump jet You haven't convinced me yet Jets that fly backwards Are soon to be knackered Don't give me the Harrier jump jet Well… Not just yet... Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me this computer crap It's no way to tackle a SAP It's OK for Dicks, Germans and Spicks But Gentleman always carry a map! Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me Air Traffic Control They live in a bloody great hole… They scream, and they shout, then F**k you about Don't give me Air Traffic Control. Give me Buccaneers... They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet We are the last of the few. Don't give me the F-104 It's only a ground loving whore It goes in a turn, flick, spin and burn Don't give me the F-104. Give me Buccaneers They're British through and through The Banana Jet The Best we've had yet WE ARE THE LAST OF THE FEW!

[@hotstepper887]

LOL @ The RAPTOR? Education is what you need. There really is something very wrong with you people today. You all get taught propaganda as if a real part of your own country's history?, and it's the rest of us, that have to put up with reading your own opinions of comical rubbish! Try to have a discussion about any military aircraft, with any American, and you'll be shocked just how unaware they really are? They all talk endless rubbish, and so much so, they even start to believe their own rubbish. It makes no difference, if you show them, or explain to them, or even go through it in fine detail with them. You can conclusively prove things to these people, and they'll ignore it, and just carry on saying the same thing? Even when they've just been shown, and had something proven to them, (something that they were completely wrong about), makes no difference at all. Nope, they'll just deny it, or ignore it, seriously, you can talk to any of them about any military hardware, at all, and you'll always come to find, they actually know nothing about any of it. Even when you point things out to them, things that they've so obviously just dreamt up in their own head?, all you'll then get back, is a few lines of remedial illegible rubbish. But you'll then see them somewhere else, repeating what they now already know to be complete rubbish??. Honestly, you could not make it up! If people could think for themselves today, they'd all be questioning why the USA made a point of announcing to the world, they've made it illegal to sell the F-22??. The USA seemingly want it believed, it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it?. But, that actually makes no sense at all, because the reality is, they've no idea what's around the corner in modern technology terms, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, It could well of made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage?. (If it actually works). If it worked?, they'd have been able to recoup much of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety. Now, there's another reason the USA would make a point of announcing they've made it illegal to sell the F-22?, a point that the American people seem to want to neglect today? And that's, If, it doesn't work, If it is, as I suspect it is, a lemon?, and if the USA have then used the F-22 as a propaganda purpose aircraft?, then what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and it's really a lemon?, than making it illegal to sell? Really, and logically, the only possible way to explain that stunt, of the USA announcing they've now made it illegal to sell the F-22, can only be because it's a propaganda aircraft, a failure! 16 years the US have had F-22, and they've been in wars the entire time, only they've never used it, and they removed every F-22 from the Middle East, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015. You can think about this as much as you like?, that is the only real possible reason the USA would do that. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of war scenario, or any major sortie, as it's basically junk. They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.

[@dodo3441]

youtube: F22 Demo Team: Insane F22 hype video

[@ichimonjiguy]

"The modern fighters are designed for marathon, not for sprint. " excellent point.

[@niklas5236]

“As it became clear that air defenses could not be defeated by speed”….. The SR-71 would like to have a chat.

[@mrchocolatebean8878]

the sr71 was retired partially because air defenses could not be defeated by speed among other reasons

[@BentCheeks]

@@mrchocolatebean8878 no, it was retired because cost & satellites being able to do its job, nothing could touch it at the time

[@rykehuss3435]

@@BentCheeks It was untouchable mostly via the virtue of its very high service ceiling. No missiles could fly that high back then. I dont know if they still can

[@NotWhatYouThink]

@Niklas, we said that in the context of fighter jets.

[@chaitanyasingh3258]

@@BentCheeks MiG 31: Are you sure about that?

[@erictaylor5462]

5:00 Something to keep in mind here, combat doctrine of the 1950's was very different to what was faced in Korea or Vietnam. The thinking in the 1950's was that the Soviets would send massive waves of high speed high altitude bombers over the Artic to attack the United States from the North (shortest route from most of the USSR). To meet this threat Americans developed high altitude high speed interceptors. Battle plans called for radar pickets in Northern Canada to spot the incoming Soviet bombers and alert interceptors that would scramble from bases in the northern US States. These interceptors would locate the incoming Soviet bombers and launch long range, nuclear tipped anti aircraft missiles. These would not be aimed at a particular aircraft but at entire formations. After this first attack the Americans would then engage the Soviet survivors with medium and short range missiles (conventional) and if any survivors were still left the pilots of the interceptors would then try to ram the Soviet bombers with their own planes. Should the Americans survive this final attack they could, in theory, eject and parachute to "safety" into an area that had just experienced a rain storm made of radioactive molten aluminum, followed by a pummeling of burning Soviet wreckage, along with pissed off Russians *AND* Canadians. We all know that Canadians are pretty laid back, but I imagine having your house covered in radioactive aluminum would not leave even Canadians feeling very diplomatic. Soviet defensive plans called for more or less the same thing except without Canada's participation. After the 1960's the ICBM had pretty much replaced the idea of using aircraft to bomb with as, realistically, the aircraft had little chance of reaching the target. Vietnam showed us that the dogfight was still very much a factor, and by the 1970's the need for a high speed interceptor to shoot down Soviet bombers was seen as obsolete.

[@dunruden9720]

Arctic

[@Blox117]

'radioactive aluminum' not how it works

[@coryman125]

Not often I've seen indented YT comments but I actually kinda appreciate it. Also as a Canadian I will verify, we can stand having our houses covered in aluminium but the second there's radiation involved too we start to get just a little uneasy

[@erictaylor5462]

@@coryman125 I'm dyslexic, so anything that makes reading easier, I'm on it.

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

F-101 Voodoos and F-106 Delta Daggers carried the unguided nuke air to air rockets.

[@DarthWall275]

This is a good explanation, but you're forgetting the F-15, F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon all still have a greater top speed than the F-4, in addition to the benefits in manoeuvrability, combat range etc.

[@GuyFromJupiter]

Those are all modern air superiority fighters, which actually do benefit quite heavily from high speeds. In a BVR fight higher speed adds a bit of range to a pilot's own missiles while helping them evade enemy missiles by forcing them to waste energy (the only effective method of evasion). Also, if they are ever needed for a high speed interception having a high top speed is definitely a good thing.

[@dan725]

Also F-35 has really good performance in the subsonic flight regime. There’s so many different flight regimes to consider at any given altitudes. Different engine types love different regimes. F-22’s low bypass loves the thin high-altitudes going supersonic whereas the F-35’s higher bypass engines thrive in thicker air and in subsonic airflow. F-1 cars and Rally cars are built for different types of racing. F-22 is the F1 car with the smooth thin air. F-35 loves the rough-and-tumble of turbulent thicker air and thrives there. Both can fly at other regimes of course, but then you’d need advanced variable engines with moving inlets and controllable bypass to take advantage of each flight regime (costly, heavy, maintenance-heavy…). Transonic speeds is actually important during BVR, but accelerating to transonic is part of any sortie plan, and only happens very briefly during the entire sortie. Source: My dad was in the RoKAF, and I myself have been a US Navy contractor for their sensor systems for nearly 2 decades now.

[@frankcrawford416]

Your so right. In medium flight envelopes the f35 could out perform any other jet where it counts. Not slow, not too fast, but in the real world of combat.

[@z33r0now3]

was about to say, this video omitted the fact that short stints of high speed are very useful in bvr combat for added missile range.

[@REgamesplayer]

Last I checked, F-35 had sub-average subsonic performance. What do you have in mind, maybe I'm confusing something.

[@GGG19872]

@@REgamesplayer checked where? KZbin?🤣

[@christiandauz3742]

Imagine if the Allies had F35s at the start of WW2

[@notmenotme614]

What people don’t understand is the top speeds are theoretical. But in reality the jet is significantly slowed down by fitting weapons pylons, external fuel tanks and carrying weapons. The jet can only reach its top speed if it’s in a “clean” fit. Interestingly RAF Tornado jets were modified with a laser and a IR camera fitted under the nose, these actually disturbed the airflow into the engine intakes and prevented them from going supersonic.

[@hotstepper887]

You know less than nothing!

[@jonathanrichardson7969]

@@hotstepper887 Clearly you know more than something. Please explain why the previous answer was wrong. It would be great to hear a real expert.

[@hotstepper887]

@@jonathanrichardson7969 Because this explains and answers all these questions?. The MiG-25 (Foxbat)? As soon as you read the title of this video, surely that's what everyone who understood this, would point to? The MiG-25 was theoretically capable of a maximum speed exceeding Mach 3 and a ceiling of 27 km (89,000 ft). Its high speed was problematic: although sufficient thrust was available to reach Mach 3.2, a limit of Mach 2.83 had to be imposed as the engines tended to over speed and overheat at higher air speeds, possibly damaging them beyond repair. The specific fuel consumption with afterburners is actually nearly equal to the US, F100, despite the F100 being a far newer engine design.

[@hotstepper887]

@@jonathanrichardson7969 What is it you don't understand, this is all old long gone over discussion? Nothing new or truthful here, I'm afraid, only usual US propaganda being pushed out by a 16-year-old. Sort of speaks for itself, really.

[@hotstepper887]

@@jonathanrichardson7969 All we ever see is lies and untruths, and yet these people still don't grasp the fact, that their own words and own misunderstanding can be very dangerous, but only to themselves? This point proves what I say. We read so many Americans shouting and claiming the F-22 as the best aircraft in the world? Why? The truth we all know is, that nobody has ever seen the F-22 do anything it claims it can do, ever, not once? So you need to start explaining how anyone could claim anything when they have never seen it do a single thing? This is the truth, this is the reality, is it not?

[@micksmithson6724]

Most of these figures are for planes in a "Clean" configuration, add on missiles, tanks, full gun load etc and figures will be lower. Thats where the internal weapons bay on the F35 will pay dividends. "The F-35C can reach speeds of 1.6 Mach (~1,200 mph) even with a full internal weapons load. With its fuel and internal weapons load, the F-35C can fly faster with no drag associated with external tanks and weapons required for legacy fighters."

[@MyBelch]

In the late 80s I rode a Yamaha V-Max 1,200 cc motorcycle. It could go very fast in a straight line, but only had a 7.5 gallon gas tank. As impressive as the speed was, it was a total buzzkill having to push it to the gas station. I can relate.

[@oonmm]

That sounds more like the 1,100 cc then. Maybe your memoroes are playing a trick on you? The 1,200cc V-Max models had a cruise speed higher than most other bikes top speed, meaning that it could glide to the petrol station and even perform an unpowered landing in nessecary.

[@MyBelch]

@@oonmm Maybe. I thought it was 1199.

[@MyBelch]

wtf are you talking about?@@bfc3057

[@splewy]

TL;DW: All out speed was a design priority during the early Cold War, but was found to not actually be that useful in the real world. Modern aircraft design trades off maximum speed for more useful attributes like greater maneuverability, effective range, payload capacity and stealth.

[@TheEulerID]

All out speed was extremely important for the interceptor role when nuclear weapons were to be delivered by bombers. Of course, that became much less important once the delivery platform moved to ballistic rockets, but it had its time of utility. The English Electric Lightning was explicitly designed for that role with time to altitude being extremely important for interceptions over the North Sea.

[@splewy]

@@TheEulerID Yep, exactly. When bombers were the primary nuclear delivery method, the super high speed “dash” capability was extremely important. It’s ironic that the actual fielding of these super high speed fighters almost directly corresponded with the introduction of the ICBMs that would immediately make them obsolete.

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

But hypersonic ?

[@mandowarrior123]

@@TheEulerID it wasn't just that, but the extra speed allowed them to outrange SAMs at the time as they had relatively short range. While you can't 'outrun' a missile, you can get out of its range before it hits you...

[@TheEulerID]

@@mandowarrior123 English Electric Lightenings were designed to intercept Soviet nuclear bombers over the North Sea, and the nearest Soviet SAM missile would have been over 2,000 km away.

[@jubuttib]

Couple of additions come to mind: Some of the century series and some other super fast fighters were that way specifically for the intercept role, i.e. an incoming e.g. bomber threat is spotted, and the plane rushes to intercept it as fast as possible. Since those bombers were largely replaced by cruise missiles and ICBMs, that isn't so useful anymore. Another use for speed, even today, is to extend the range and lethality of a missile, like the AIM-120. There's a significant difference in the range and lethality of the same missile based on speed and range, and if you can shoot the same missile from Mach 2 it can be a fair bit more capable than if it was shot from Mach 1.1. Granted that is not a primary concern in plane design.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

F-104 comes to mind.

[@jubuttib]

@@HappyBeezerStudios that and the Lightning are pretty stereotypical examples.

[@paogene1288]

@@jubuttib I hope for a good thing. (Also you are refering to the English Electric aren't you?)

[@jubuttib]

@@paogene1288 Yup

[@stephenbachman132]

The F35 has a cruise speed of march 1.1 so it might not be on paper faster but it kinda is in a way. The F35 was built from lessons learnt from previous generation aircraft.

[@7heTexanRebel]

Yeah those top speeds are at full afterburner which absolutely chugs fuel.

[@casematecardinal]

Yeah it can't maintain its top speed for more than a few minutes. Its kind of sad. If one ever ran out of am rams in a fight it would be chased down and destroyed before it could escape the ao

[@katzenkralle7262]

The f35 hasnt got a cruise speed if mach 1.1 its below 1.0 100%

[@Solnoric]

@@katzenkralle7262 dash cruise(full throttle no afterburner) of mach 1.2 for several hundred miles.

[@RodrigoM3llo]

@@katzenkralle7262 F35 despite not being fully capable of supercruising, it can sustain mach 1.2 without AB for a certain range (around 150nm), which is good for stealth and fast intercepting. It's maximum speed is mach 1.6

[@slayer8actual]

Since you mentioned using stealth to help in combat in the air, we had that same mindset even on the ground. While in Iraq we were issued so much body armor it made it difficult to move, slowed us down and exhausted even the fittest Soldiers after hours of wear especially in the desert heat. Then when we went to Afghanistan, we changed our kit to much less armor. My personal armor consisted of one chest plate and one back plate carried by a simple plate carrier worn like a small vest. We also changed our camo to something that actually fit in the environment we were in and not the most useless camo ever designed by anyone, any time in any military - the ACU. In other words, our strategy went from being able to survive a hit to not being hit at all. If you can't see us, you can't kill us. Whether that worked or not is up to personal experiences and up each individual, but for me it did work. I felt much more comfortable being able to maneuver and fight back as opposed to not being able to move quickly and hoping to survive an attack.

[@hotstepper887]

Seemingly these Americans have no idea the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range). Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the APG-77 radar used in the F-22, nor the APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat? So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR? Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings. The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. The technology along with its impressive range parameters and jamming ability over large areas make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other member of the squadron, (auto selecting) the best placed BVR missile, that can be fired by anyone of the squadron with a bogie on radar, they can also take control of surface-to-air (SAM) missile defence systems - (that alone is lethal), and they can see track, enemy stealth fighter aircraft long before Russian airspace, from much greater distances, with "real-time" data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system). Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky.

[@bawbremy]

ACU SUX

[@zach2280]

@@hotstepper887 Russia is getting there ass kicked right now

[@kilroy2517]

But weren't Iraq and Afghanistan very different combat zones? Iraq being a more conventional slug-it-out urban fighting where Afghanistan was more of a rural guerilla type of fighting? The kits you described each seem appropriate for where you were using them.

[@robertagren9360]

Thailand pink uniform.

[@Brandon84J]

My dad was on the U.S.S. Constellation, and it was the first carrier to launch an F-4 Phantom from their deck. He is proud of that. I love the Phantom and A-10 Warthog more than any other planes, aesthetically. They're sexy, and old like me lol

[@cyberherbalist]

This channel's videos get better and better all the time. Please keep it up!

[@northropi2027]

One factor that was kind of missed is especially relevant to the F-35. The F-35 has enough internal room for fuel, sensors, and weapons to match the range and armament of how an F-16 normally flies out. Because this is internal, a 35 can preserve its top speed of Mach 1.6 while the Mach 2.2 F-16 would have enough added drag from external tanks, sensors, and missiles, to drive it to strictly subsonic speeds iirc. So the F-35 is faster when actually armed.

[@VeeAreSixed1]

Also the G limits of external stores reduces combat performance. A 9g F-16 isn't pulling more than 5g or so with external fuel and bombs on board. Same for all other multi role aircraft.

[@theskirata7034]

@@VeeAreSixed1 Which is why those planes have emergency jettison buttons that allow a pilot to dump all stores (also known as pylons) that aren’t Air to Air missiles, I.e. fuel tanks. This is only really deployed in a air combat situation, but it certainly exists.

[@Shace616]

One part that was definitely left out of this is that Air Superiority has completely changed to being able to fight outside of visual range. Which completely defeats the purpose of needing to go fast because the air-to-air missiles are meant to be fired from Dozens of miles away and most non stealth aircraft would be downed before ever knowing there was a plane targeting them.

[@glassfullofmilk]

@@Shace616 You will still need to go fast enough to increase the Kinematic energy of the missile but to also defeat the incoming missiles too. Being above Mach 1 greatly increases Missile energy compared to being below mach at launch due to Transonic drag effect. If you can make your missile reach further than the other guy's one you would use that speed.

[@thedausthed]

Yes, I am so sick of idiots who do not understand basic aerodynamics like drag shitting on the F-35!

[@TheLooking4sunset]

Never even thought of these things, a great vid ( as always) thanks

[@ioijiopjkiopjkp]

Another benefit of high top speeds is lofting long range missiles and bombs to give them longer ranges. It's actually really beneficial in a beyond visual range engagement to launch a long range air to air missile at higher speeds, since theoretically you can launch sooner than your opponent.

[@BogeyTheBear]

Launch altitude is a more effective factor in extending a missile's range. Missiles don't have wings, they have control fins. Getting to maximum range for a missile means that, for the initial phase of flight, nosing up and climbing for the stratosphere while you still have fuel in the rocket motor. The altitude at which you launch the missile is more important, because the higher you are at launch means the less distance the missile has to travel to reach 80,000 feet and coast through the thin atmosphere downrange. The 10,000 foot ceiling advantage the F-22 has over the F-15 means the AMRAAMs the F-22 can launch have further reach.

[@NarutokunJB]

@@BogeyTheBear speed does have a bit more weight with unpowered glide weapons.

[@GhostRyderID]

Good content and I appreciate the tactical reasons for slower current speeds being explained. Point of order though, while the conflict between North & South Vietnam lasted 20 years and started in 1955, direct US & specifically Air Force involvement did not start until 1961, and then was only a small element of WWII era prop driven aircraft used in support of the French and South Vietnam. It was not until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 that the US started moving jet fighters into theater, and by March 1973 all US forces were withdrawn. So US jet fighter aircraft involvement was less than 9 years, not 20.

[@seanwhittington6637]

Thank you

[@frustrateduser9933]

True

[@keeponcruisin7876]

Yeah for the war but how long did it serve before they officially retired it? I mean, the A-10 did like 50 years or something

[@georgecolthurst4216]

RF-101 wasn't used in Vietnam? Not technically a fighter I guess, but they were in the neighborhood from 1959-onward checking in on China.

[@GhostRyderID]

@@georgecolthurst4216 Military records indicate the Voodoo didn't even start arriving in Japan until 1958 and wasn't deployed into Thailand until 1960, and Vietnam until 1961, and then as a reconnaissance aircraft, not a fighter. Even if you include non fighter aircraft, jets still weren't in use (by the US at least) in Vietnam during the entire 20 years of the conflict. That was my main point.

[@thundershadow]

The easy answer is that they have a greater standoff kill ability. They have a greater effective patrol radius due to the increased range of missiles and the greater range of their radar. They don't need to close the distance to sight distance to be effective.

[@notsoserious0944]

The theology behind the F35 is a BVR engagement where the opponent cannot "see" the F35. The BVR fight is indeed helped by a high top speed as a AMRAAM leaving the rail will add the velocity of the aircraft to the velocity of its own rocket motor. The range and energy of the AIM120 is thereby increased. All that is a fighter intercept mission like the F4 and F14 were designed for; which was to hustle out and intercept the enemy at high speed.

[@toyocolla]

I wonder if the MiG-25 will still remain the fastest. -(Edit: MiG-25 is an interceptor, not a fighter. My bad.)-

[@thekraken1173]

Probably no.

[@GogiSanchez]

SR-72 the Son... 👀

[@Solnoric]

@@GogiSanchez doesn't exist except as computer graphics. Also it's a recon plane, not a fighter jet.

[@GogiSanchez]

@david suursoo but this one, the speed goal is mach 6-7. 👀🚀 First prototype flight test will be scheduled 2025. It will enter service around 2030's. Edit:Air force is considering SR-72 to have a strike role to carry hypersonic missiles and even long range air-to-air role.

[@hmong_keeb_kwm]

After watching this video and the explanation of why fighter jets are slower today's then those of the past. I'll say yes Mig25 can still remain the fastest for the mean time and probably for a while. Even it's upgraded version Mig31 Speed was reduce. Unless the rumors of the Mig41 project is real and its ridiculous speed claim is real. But remember that the Mig25, Mig31 is not a fighter jet but instead is a interceptor jet. Is made to intercept and fire long-range missile and get out as it was design for. It was not design to stay in a airspace and to try to fight and hold a airspace.

[@maxime6677]

At 2:13 you can say "the french" instead of "the european" when you are talking about the super mystère and the mirage 3

[@EliranC]

This channel is incredibly informative, accurate and without all the BS. I am pleased, never seen a military channel on KZbin with such high standards. Good job!

[@pinverarity]

Not so accurate. He states twice that the Vietnam War lasted for 20 years, which is remarkably wrong. U.S. combat troops went into Vietnam in 1965 and were all gone by 1973. You can stretch it to 1963-1975 if you want to include *any* U.S. military presence, but he’s still astonishingly wrong.

[@thesupreme8062]

Eh the video is good but its not very accurate.

[@cool_crazman7861]

This guy is a legend

[@kavindulakshitha9732]

Yeah 🖐️🖐️🖐️

[@flinch622]

Short version: evasive maneuvers have technical limits that missiles do not - the pilot. However... if you slow a missile [that needs to launch at mach 2+ to intercept an aircraft in the first place], it is out of range in terms of steering: what works for high speed maneuvering is a dog at low speed: might even lose control. That which you cannot outrun must be outmaneuvered.

[@blurglide]

I got to see Mach 2 in an F-16B once. It feels like absolutely nothing. Aircraft was light-weight and stripped down with no weapon systems or combat avionics.

[@MrAdopado]

... and amazing to think that back in the 1960s Concorde could be full of passengers and their luggage ... sipping champagne as they spent 3 hours crossing the Atlantic ocean at that speed!

[@bigblue6917]

We should remember that post WW2 the main threat was Russian bombers. So getting to the intercept point as quickly as possible was imperative. And for this missiles were they preferred weapon. Which is why the original F-4 Phantom II did not have guns. Then the USA got into a war where shooting down enemy bombers was not needed but air combat was. So combat became subsonic and the gun made its welcome return.

[@strongallalong89]

The speeds quoted are also the unclassified top speeds. The F-35 is significantly faster than Mach 1.6, and its classified speed is unknown to the general public. That said, enjoyed the video very much! Thanks for making it!

[@loke6664]

With that view, the Me 262 was supersonic too since it broke the soundbarrier during diving (which was risky since it could explode but still was done pretty often when things got really bad). The official max speed is the safe speed a plane can reach in straight flight. Planes can shortly fly faster but it is risky and it takes it toll on the plane. Basically we come down to a few things: Range is very important and the F-35 have already less range then a F4 and significantly less range then for an instance a Swedish Gripen. That matters little when you operate from a close air base or carrier but generally that is not the case. Stealth tends to require more fuel and so does increasing the armament of a plane. Maneuverability at high speed also tend to to take it's price. Grumman X-29 and Su 47 were made with that in mind but those planes drank fuel like an Irishman on St Patrick's day and had a very limited effectiveness in sub sonic conditions so neither were mass produced. That said, there are times when you would want a really fast plane, like for an interceptor. But turbojet engines all get lousy performance at high speed so that require either a ramjet or a scramjet engine. The YF-12 was a ramjet fighter but it was too expensive at the time. At the moment US is experimenting with Scramjet engines and test drones have passed mach 5 for a shorter while with those. Since Scramjet engines run on hydrogen it is interesting since it both is environmentally friendly and more important doesn't require you access to oil to produce, just electricity and water. So I think fast interceptors will be a thing again in the future but I am not sure they will be the main component of any future air force. I think it is likely that increasing the combat range will be a more important factor, depending on air refueling is rather risky in a war between nations which have a competent air force. That the F4 had more range then the F-35 is actually worse then the speed.

[@robertb.3651]

No it's not 😂🤦

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

Most fighters have their optimal turning speed at Mach 0.5 and below. Even though the airframes can handle more, they simply cannot turn any faster because the pilot's G force resistance is the limiting factor

[@saxreaper]

that is exactly why drones have an advantage

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@saxreaper Not really. Most aircraft take a beating from high G loading when carrying significant payload. High Gs strain the human in the cockpit, but a 2000lb bomb mounted to a wing at 9G... that's an insane bending moment on the wing. Replacing the pilot so you can do 12G will just cut the usable hours on that airframe, if not lead to outright crack formation.

[@AKumar-co7oe]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD There's a lot more that goes into this - drone fighters can afford much lower build quality / development time compared to human fighters which spend the bulk of their design lives in quality certification. Economically you can spit out multiple drones for the cost of one fighter so it might still make sense. Secondly drones seem to be getting the internal bay treatment as well.

[@Snailmale7]

Turn radius is also affected by ( lift coefficient, weight , thrust , airfoil design ..). At some point an airfoil will simply stop flying . When that happen, the airplane ( piloted or not ) is unable to load anymore Gs. It will depart normal flight , and without a thrust vectoring …. It will be out of control …. Until recovered from that state .

[@Dubanx]

You missed a huge factor when it comes to why the F35's top speed is so bad, in particular. These top speeds are only achievable when no missiles or bombs are being carried. The practical speeds of these aircraft, with weapons, is much much lower due to all of the drag they induce. The key reason the F35 is limited to a mere Mach 1.6 is that it uses internal weapon bays. The extra bulk hurts its top speed when carrying no munitions. That said, the moment you put missiles and bombs on most aircraft, they get considerably slower. With the F35's internal bays, weapons add no additional drag to the aircraft. So the F35 comes out much more favorably when actually loaded with weapons.

[@nczioox1116]

And stealthy

[@thunderbird1921]

The F-35 may be a nice bird, but it definitely has its limitations and as a result one has to wonder about the insane price tag as well. Not sure if it's a wise idea to promote this as a one size fits all solution that some officials have done in recent years, even if it is very useful.

[@dat581]

Actually you are completely incorrect on why the F-35 is limited to 1.6 Mach. It is not a draggy aircraft as you and many other low knowledge commenters claim. The design uses a high level of area ruling to produce a low drag profile which is comparable to 4th Generation aircraft in clean configuration. The reason the F-35 is limited to 1.6 is because neither the USAF or USN thought higher speeds are worth the bother. Thus the intakes were designed to be efficient at cruise speeds and don't have the variable ramps to allow the aircraft to reach higher speeds without supersonic air entering the engine (very bad). The design will quite easily pass 2.0 if the correct air is fed into the engine and has been tested up to 1.8. The F135 engine is not at full power at the jet's maximum speed.

[@dat581]

@@thunderbird1921 That's a pretty ignorant comment.

[@elijahtucker7938]

@@thunderbird1921 The price per aircraft isn't much higher than generation 4 aircraft, and the massive development cost is shared with US allies that are also buying the f-35.

[@ABCDEFGHIJKELA...]

Heli's were more effective in Vietnam, and they were many times slower than available jets. It's one of the reasons the Warthog is such a special, and important weaponized craft.

[@alyssadavenport629]

the A-10 is a fun toy to shoot terrorists with, but is completely useless when anything might fire a missile at it from further than 10 miles. you’ve got to remember that modern day sams probably use active radar homing instead of the traditional semi-active, meaning the wild weasel stuff at low alt doesn’t work

[@alyssadavenport629]

but that all assumes russia is an enemy on par with the united states, which they have shown they are not. DEAD and then just treating them like a 3rd world country would probably work lol. i mean for god’s sake in another one of his videos he has footage of a russian sam system that wasnt even on while “protecting” a convoy

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Most of the A-10s vehicle kills were obtained with guided munitions. Any airplane can carry those these days. Unfortunately aside of the sheer pizzazz of the mental image of the A-10, it really doesn't have much to offer in modern war.

[@haakoflo]

​@@alyssadavenport629 This is what I believed 3 months ago. But look at how Ukraine is able to operate their aircraft, even in airspace that should be controlled by Russian SAMs. They avoid the S300/S400 missiles by flying low. For that kind of use, A10 would still be quite competitive. They are somewhat better at surviving ground fire, even (with luck) manpads, than F16 and F15 at low altitudes. Of course Ukraine is taking losses, but far fewer than I used to think, and A10's should do even better than their SU24/25/27 and Mig29. Also, the A10 is cheaper both to operate and build than F15/16, meaning you get more for the same $. Compared to the F35, the A10 is probably inferior vs a symetrical opponent. But as long as enemy SAM's are operational, they may actually have an advantage over F16/F15 for CAS missions. I suppose their weakness would be air-to-air when neither side has good SAM coverage, but in such a case, the US would rule supreme anyway, at least against Russia. (China may be another matter, at least in a few years.) Also, it's not like the A10 is completely useless in air-to-air, especially at low altitude. Inexperienced opponents may be surprised by their low speed agility and turn rate. If they know to use energy tactics (boom and zoom) to defeat the A10, that probably means they have to fly high enough to be visible on radar, which is dangerous if there are any real US fighters closeby.

[@highjumpstudios2384]

@@montanahiker48 sounds like you need to get over yourself friend.

[@miletello1]

One VERY important factor that is omitted from this video is that higher top speeds and service ceilings are absolutely crucial in BVR engagements. The faster your launch speed, the fast your missle speed.

[@AugmentedGravity]

To an extent yes.

[@deathcharge811]

true but if you cant detect that plane in front of you then you are essentially cruising right towards your demise.

[@miletello1]

@@deathcharge811 that same speed that aids in launch parameters also aid in surviving an enemy launch...I may not see the bandit but I will see his radar output via RWR. Notching and cranking are no good without speed....I'm not dismissing stealth at all...I'm simply pointing out that this video seems to dismiss speed a little too much.

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

Mr. Drag says no.

[@miletello1]

@@MrKentaroMotoPI what?

[@ultron2-465]

The F-4 is an incredibly awsome looking aircraft.

[@raywhitehead730]

The Brewster Buffalo wasn't that good looking but had a fantastic kill ratio. Looks is nothing.

[@BattleshipWarspite]

I more prefer Supermarine scimitar design.

[@TheFanatical1]

The older planes are ugly in a beautiful way, the newer planes are beatiful in an ugly way. The F-35 and F-22 look nice, but they also look like toys. The F-8 and the F-4 are great big beasts that exist to push the envelope of what is aerodynamically possible

[@montreauxs]

Looks have nothing to do with performance..

[@andrewlambert7246]

Speed with afterburner is not so important today. It is supercruise that is important today which is around mach 1.4 constant speed.

[@southdakotanboogaloo]

I love watching your videos because learning about the military is one of my favorite things to do :p

[@anibler]

"Fighter jets have not gotten faster in the past 50yrs and in some cases, they have slowed down." *Shows a B-2 bomber*

[@dtester]

This video reminds me of when I was a kid looking at fighter jet specs. I never knew how misleading the top speed numbers were until I started to learn more about jets as an adult.

[@nrahman975]

Can you include knots in your videos cos my sense of speed is stuck in the imperial system after playing flight sims for a while, it would be very helpful. Really like your videos as its a nice amount of supporting knowledge to my interest in fighter aircraft.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Yes, we will try to use it where relevant 👍

[@flawer1316]

i use knots cause of ships lol

[@thet1013]

You can just use the calculation from kmh or mph to knots

[@ridhobaihaqi144]

Are you bad on physics? Especially on units

[@TheEpicLinkFreeman]

knots are very similar to MPH, you can just reduce the MPH by about 10% for a close approximation. 15% for a closer approximation, but a little harder to do on the fly in your head

[@alessiodecarolis]

A speed of Mach2+ in the early'60s was a sort of status symbol, expecially given that weren't aircrafts' expert to buy them, but politicians, too often political reasons have superseded rationality in the acquisition of weapons. F.e. F104s adoption wasn't very popular btw some Luftwaffe's higher-ups. Israel (wisely) refused them.

[@TheFanatical1]

The 104 excelled at doing exactly what it said on the tin. Lockheeb bribed everyone and their mother to adopt it for things that it wasn't designed to do, and so it suffered.

[@wesleyhitchcock4414]

I got to ride about 35 hours over a 3 year period in the WO seat of an F4 back in the mid 70s. One hour from Kunsan AB to Kedina AB(1000 miles). What a rush!!

[@IgnatianMystic]

4:04 That doesn't surprise me in the least. You sacrifice maneuverability for speed the faster you go. At mach 2, those aircraft could probably barely turn compared to their subsonic or

[@hotstepper887]

Why not go watch a fully armed SU - 27 prove everything you think completely wrong? LOL

[@jefflei215]

@@hotstepper887 lmao doing a cope-bra to die immediately because you just all of your energy?

[@hotstepper887]

@@jefflei215 And therein lies the idiocy in one sentence. You're only someone that understands less than nothing about any military hardware at all

[@hotstepper887]

@@jefflei215 Seemingly these Americans have no idea the F-22 and F-35 can't see, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR (beyond visual range). Stealth alone defeats high-frequency (short wave) radar by absorption and deflection, it does not defeat low-frequency (long wave) radar. Therefore, to see, track, and target stealth aircraft you must have long-wave radar, but it must also be enhanced to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Neither the APG-77 radar used in the F-22, nor the APG-81 radar used in the F-35, can see any other stealth aircraft from BVR (without enhanced long wave radar) - This fact the US Air force obviously know! Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat? So how can these US aircraft be seen as any sort of threat to either China or Russia, who both have these aircraft technically beaten? They can see and target US jets from BVR, yet the US jets can't even see them from BVR? Russia's new 5th generation Byelka (2band) radar, used in SU-57, does have enhanced long-wave radar, they've designed and developed the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've cleverly embedded L-band AESA radars in the leading edges of the wings. The new L-band AESA radar data gets processed in real time through extremely powerful Russian Elbrus computers being significantly enhanced removing all clutter, meaning it can see, track, target, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. The technology along with its impressive range parameters and jamming ability over large areas make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. They can also interact in ''real-time'' with each other member of the squadron, (auto selecting) the best placed BVR missile, that can be fired by anyone of the squadron with a bogie on radar, they can also take control of surface-to-air (SAM) missile defence systems - (that alone is lethal), and they can see track, enemy stealth fighter aircraft long before Russian airspace, from much greater distances, with "real-time" data from massive Russian ground long wave stations (that are all protected today with the networked S-400 defensive system). Therefore, as they'll always know where the enemy aircraft are, they'll always be able to approach any enemy aircraft head on, and therefore stealthily, (Russia wisely sacrificed rear end stealth for much better manoeuvrability) meaning today, the US fighter jets would not even be able to see them coming!! Russia's Byelka (2band) radar covers all aspects of frequencies across all channels, that are used for tracking, targetting, and also jamming. It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. Russia tested much of this new radar suit on the SU-35, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into SU-35's permanently, meaning Russia's SU-35S flanker will be at no disadvantage with F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be seen and targeted from BVR, the SU-35 with the new 5th gen radar is as able to see and target the US jets from BVR, seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile distance, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/35 have, as more than critical, if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky. The design has clear potential to provide a genuine shared multifunction aperture with applications including: Search, track and destroy missile mid-course guidance against low signature aircraft. Identification of Friend, Foe/Secondary Surveillance Radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. Effectively neutralizing the USA's use of AWACS for their detection. The Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is a very important strategic development, and a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and some if not many UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all Flanker variants equipped with such radars.

[@michaelgreaves2375]

The most important factor of Speed Vs. Stealth is that the faster you go, the bigger the shock wave being pushed. A shock wave can be big enough to be visible on RADAR even if the jet isn't.

[@JW-be8wf]

The shock wave is a sound wave which is compressed because the plane exceeded the speed of sound. Radar is an electromagnetic device. It can't detect shock waves produced by supersonic flight. The type of detection you are thinking is called Schlieren Signature. It is used to study supersonic airflow for planes and usually done in a wind tunnel. Completely different than radars

[@LRRPFco52]

Air is RF transparent, although there are weather Radars. If you attenuate a Radar for wx, then the aircraft will be hidden in or behind the atmospheric clutter, especially a VLO aircraft. Wherever you read about this atmospheric shock wave detection Radar, regard the source with extreme scrutiny...i.e. toss it in the garbage.

[@andygeary3531]

Fantastic footage compilation, thank you!

[@emmata98]

7:11 not only that, but the shockheating, so the air getting compressed in front of the aircraft and heated that way. Air friction is at high speeds often the lesser reason of heating

[@flyoverkid55]

Speed was a great factor in air superiority in the early and mid 20th Century, but air combat changed significantly toward the end of the century. Turn rates, rate of climb, thrust v. weight are all greater considerations now than 50, 60 or more years ago. It's called " fighting ", not racing.

[@thesupreme8062]

Thats wrong. Turn rate and rate of climb are actually less important now than they used to.

[@flyoverkid55]

@@thesupreme8062 Really? Show me some data that proves your assertion.

[@SergZa]

@@flyoverkid55 YA REALLY. And maybe first you will provide proofs for these words of yours - "but air combat changed significantly towards the end of the century". For some strange reason, nowhere did I find amazing stories about air battles like in the middle of the last century. I would very much like to see how the planes, due to their maneuverability, dodge enemy missiles, enter into a maneuverable battle with the enemy, or whatever else you came up with there.

[@flyoverkid55]

@@SergZa Simple. Try running a YT search for air to air combat in Iraq. There are a number of these videos available, though certainly not as many as in Korea or WW II. That you don't know about this doesn't negate it.

[@SergZa]

@@flyoverkid55 Proofs - "but air combat changed significantly towards the end of the century" - are these stories, not even videos of air combat from KZbin? Seriously? The tik tok generation are fantastic morons.

[@FernFolf]

If you’re looking for song credits still, one of the ones used is “the glory of war” by pharaoh music.

[@VTPSTTU]

Thanks for this explanation of the practical issues involved in flight speed. I'm glad that we are doing what makes sense, but I will always find the F-104 to be the most beautiful jet fighter ever produced.

[@user-njyzcip]

Flying pencilllll

[@MrFarnanonical]

Top speed can be advantageous actually. You mentioned that max turn performance is found at subsonic speeds and while that makes sense and was important for the Vietnam era, when beyond visual range wasn't actually beyond visual range, it was actually under 10 miles. The Aim-4, aim-7, and aim-9 all had a short range compared to missiles today. The faster and higher an aircraft is when it fires its missiles, faster and further that missile will go, and it will be more lethal, remember the higher you are when you fire the less dense the air will be making drag less of an issue. So to maximize missile performance you need speed and sn altitude advantage. The faster you're going the greater chance you have to defeat incoming missiles. Modern aircraft with super cruise can utilize this without the massive penalty of increased fuel consumption. So why then does the f35 have such a low top speed? It's the same reason the f22 is actually limited to mach 2.2 even though its capable of going faster than that. The reason is that the faster a jet flies through the air the greater the surface temperature becomes. Not only does this damage an aircraft's stealth coating, it makes the aircrafts infrared signature more visible at greater ranges. If you're in a BVR engagement as a 4th gen fighter/non stealth jet like the Eurofighter against another 4th gen then high speed is going to be vital. A stealth aircraft will be able to get closer without being seen and hopefully fire on the enemy from within the no escape zone, without the enemy knowing you're there. So to reiterate, the lower speed of 5th gen fighters is because the extra speed is detrimental to the stealthy design of the aircraft. Naval fighters tend to be an exception though, the F/A-18 and the french rafale are both fairly slow, a top speed of under mach 1.8. That's because landing on a carry means they need excellent low speed characteristics which are usually counter to a top high speed. That's why the US navy used the F-14 Tomcat which had swing wings, for lower stall speeds when the wings are forward and less drag/higher speed when they're swept back.

[@NickACrowley]

Congratulations - you just said the things in the video.

[@nocare]

@@NickACrowley except the video lacked the nuance to differentiate between when speed is and isn't vital and why. Listing problems with high top speeds and advantages of low top speeds is what we call bias. Even if those are the reasons driving the speeds lower those reasons don't make sense without adding the context of why you would want high top speeds. Instead the video leads the viewer to believe high top speeds where desirable only because designers where mistaken into thinking faster was better. Thus creating a false sense that there is no benefit to high top speeds and lots of disadvantages so modern fighters are slower. In reality high top speeds still matter and this comment accurately pointed those reasons out and gave the downsides the nuance and context to allow the read to share the conclusions because they have the same information to make the decision rather than having to accept the conclusion simply because they said it was so.

[@landonkemp4880]

Speed is the key. With speed you can pick who to go after, who to run away from, and who to dog fight with. Altitude is the other factor, less important than speed, but still very important. If you are higher than an enemy when coming down on them, you have an energy advantage, altitude advantage, and can restate yourself for another attack while the enemy who is far lower than you can't even climb fast enough to shoot at you, speed and altitude are literally the best, if not the only answer to pilots problems.

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

I love the idea of a pilot actually throwing a grenade into an enemy plane. "ONLY IN BATTLEFIELD"

[@h2otek312]

Interesting. I do find the initial comparison of the F4 and F35 a bit odd though since much of the conversation revolved around the air to air mission. The F35 was not designed for air to air. That is the F 22's realm.

[@LRRPFco52]

JSF was absolutely designed for both strike and to match or exceed the A2A capabilities of all the aircraft it would replace, namely the F-16 and F/A-18. The priority of Key Performance Requirements were: Exceed the combat radius of the legacy platforms by 100nm (F-35A needed to exceed F-16C, F-35C needed to exceed F/A-18A/C, F-35B needed to exceed AV-8B). For climb rate, cruise speed, ITR, STR, they needed to match or exceed the F-16 and F/A-18 in combat configurations, as well as the MiG-29. They did all of that with the JSF KPPs after SWAT. F-35A could barely do it before SWAT, and only got even better after SWAT. SWAT involved replacing all of the metallic structural features in the tail booms and tailplanes with carbon fiber structures, not just the skin. Because of the sensors, F-35s have been defeating F-22s in BVR large force exercises since 2017. Sources: F-35-From Concept to Cockpit USAF Northern Edge LFEs pilot reports both from F-35A and F-22A aggressors

[@Shaun_Jones]

@@LRRPFco52 I actually didn’t know that they’ve put the F35 and F22 head to head. I guess no one’s talking about it because they can’t bear the thought of the Raptor being bested, especially by the “turkey.”

[@knurlgnar24]

The video isn't wrong but overlooks the primary purpose and real combat use of high speed afterburner situations, as was the reason these older designs were the way they were. The use was for one purpose and one purpose only: To rapidly get out of a tight situation. This was used extensively in Vietnam and many F4 pilots credit its speed for their survival. When things unexpectedly got too hot the pilot would light the afterburner, nose down, and get the hell out without being able to be chased down. They sometimes ran out of fuel before landing but it at least got them into friendly territory. THIS was the purpose of high speed in fighter aircraft and THIS is the reason it is obsolete today.

[@77quanah]

I think you have failed to mention the intended use of the many of the older aircraft. The aircraft like the MIG 25 and nearly all of the century series aircraft were designed to intercept enemy strategic bombers and not for air to air combat against other small aircraft, therefore high speed and climb rates were a priority over maneuverability. Even the F-4 which you refer to was primarily designed as an interceptor.

[@OverwatchSIX]

What is buddy doing at 2:00? Anyone know? Looks SKETCHY lol

[@3d1e00]

Surprised you didn't talk about the limitations of radiation-absorbent materials. They don't do too well with high heat loads. Believe the next gen ceramics are an attempt to deal with this. High speed intercept is way more important than turn rate due to BVR dominance in current doctrines. F35 goes with stealth for first look, first shoot approach but I'm sure if they could get it past Mach 2 without borking RAM they would. IR at 50km+ isn't massively exploitable for a weapon lock anyways.

[@gotanon8958]

Except that your wrong the A-12(The Ancestor of the Sr-71) was equipped with RAM and it routinely flys at mach 3 so does the F-22 which is mach 2+ capable.

[@bosknight7837]

@@gotanon8958 that doesn’t mean it’s great for the coating. The SR-71 is VERY maintenance intensive

[@3d1e00]

@@gotanon8958 if you search for the F22 and F35 RAM issues you'll find they even limited the F35 durations at high Mach to deal with it. You can get a mig31 up to Mach 3 plus if you needed it, apparently the engines won't go up again after that though. A plane isn't that useful if it's in pieces after every mission. Would be interesting to understand how the A12 RAM did after a Mach 3 run, I imagine a specialist short run recon plane like that went up a handful of times a year.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@3d1e00 The F-35A doesn't have that issue, it happened three times in total and they couldn't replicate it reliably in testing. The limit on speed in Bs and Cs is just a precaution for peacetime.

[@3d1e00]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I think I found what you were talking about. Was a quote from a general about damage. Digging in to this further it seems their are rumours that there was a problem but isn't now. Or that the problem limits top speed unless damage is acceptable for mission goals. I still stand by the fact that the reduction in top speed is not a desirable attribute. A fast stealth aircraft will have higher survivability compared to a slower one. Also I don't see how IR will come in to play often if you can't get close enough due to poor radar track. And this doesn't take in to account reduced exhaust from super cruise Vs after burner assisted. As soon as next gen RAM allows it planes will go faster again.

[@stephenhosking7384]

Excellent video! My own interest in military aviation has been mostly WWI and WWII, with a bit of Korea (Mig vs Sabre) and "Top Gun". From this background I just assumed that "speed" would always be a design priority for both fighters and bombers, and so assumed that the famous F-4 Phantom would be comparatively slow to subsequent generations, so your title grabbed my attention. I applaud that you were able to, in 10 minutes, explain the backstory to WWI and Korea, and then use the crucial 10,000 hours of flight data from Vietnam to explain why things started to change, and then followed with a comprehensive coverage of post-Vietnam military aircraft technology (turn rate, missiles, stealth, combat radius, design and construction, etc.) to make a compelling argument for why designers abandoned the search for higher speeds - in striking contrast to the first 50 years of military aviation. Well argued, and very, very well presented!

[@michaelwoods4495]

The F-4 was designed as a fleet interceptor. It went fast to get to the incoming enemy. But nobody ever attacked our fleets that way. And Phantoms didn't turn well. And, as pointed out, they really gulp fuel in afterburner. In a fighter plane-on-plane engagement, turning performance means more. --Michael Woods, Major, USMC and Naval Aviator

[@fuckoff4705]

turning performance doesn't matter at all anymore lol

[@TornaitSuperBird]

⁠​⁠@@fuckoff4705With BVR combat, yes. But if that's the case, then why does a craft like the Sukhoi-57 have the maneuverablity capabilities it has?

[@stepheno21]

To a degree yes. But I think comparing an f4 to an F35 is wrong. In fact compare it to an F-16 which the F35 is replacing. In a clean jet. The F16 can reach M2.3 at 50,000ft. when in combat configuration and loaded with weapons. The F-16 will never reach its top speed. Now the F-35 top speed is M1.6. But in stealth configuration and weapons loaded inside. Can still reach M1.6. So yes the Viper is the faster jet. But when when in combat. That top speed advantage is gone!

[@mobius7089]

2.05 is the Viper's top speed. Takes forever to get there, can only hold it for seconds, and if you wan to be get home based on fuel, you would have had to dive to get to that speed in the first place.

[@mikewright2858]

Don't forget Super Cruise - which allows for lower supersonic speeds without afterburners, making speeds of around Mach 1.2 actually potentially usable.

[@thedausthed]

They are not slower, external stores massively increase drag and slowdown the aircraft, so these "max" speeds of older aircraft are completely unrealistic vs aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 which can carry a combat load internally and thus don't suffer from the extra drag.

[@panpiper]

Makes the F22 all the more interesting, being capable of supercruise at mach 1.6 without using afterburners, and having vectored thrust for an insane turn radius...

[@austindavies6371]

LOL f 23 was better all round as an intercepter f22 got the gig as northrope already had the b2 contract!

[@antsfinland2760]

@@austindavies6371 I mean the f23 had a lot of problems

[@dwal3486]

Good ol informational video. I actually never thought about why modern fighters got slower

[@johanrunfeldt7174]

When you want to fly faster than M1.9, you need a variable geometry air intake. That's the reason the top speed of the F-16 is M1.85. It was meant as a relatively affordable fighter for smaller air forces in NATO and elsewhere, so the design requirement skipped having a complicated and expensive variable geometry intake, and went for a fixed geometry intake instead.

[@LRRPFco52]

And yet the F-16 is one of the only teen fighters that can actually go over Mach 2, but in a relatively clean/stripped condition. F-14 in practice maxed out at 1.8, otherwise it was likely to compressor stall both the Pratt and GE engines. Stripped F-15A/C will do Mach 2.2. F-16 will do Mach 2.02, whereas the Hornet can barely get to Mach 1.5 on a post-mx check flight, in a dive. F-35A will do Mach 1.67 every time while carrying full internal weapons and AIM-9Xs on stations 1 & 11. F-35B and C will do Mach 1.6. None of it is really useful if you’re already a VLO platform cruising at .85-.95 Mach.

[@mobius7089]

@@LRRPFco52 I'm sorry, what? The clean Hornet will at least get to 1.75. The F-16 can reach that speed, but only for seconds and of you want to get there and get back home you have to dive for it, acceleration takes too long.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@mobius7089 Vincent Aiello said he took a slick baby Hornet on a post maintenance flight, could barely break through Mach 1.5 in a slight dive. With pylons and weapons? It won't go there, which means the book limits aren't operationally-relevant. F-16 stripped will break over Mach 2 barely, but again, this isn't operationally-relevant because it won't do it with pylons and weapons. F-16 has longer legs than a baby Hornet as well. One major problem we had with the teen series was in combat configurations, they couldn't demonstrate their impressive performances, as they were handicapped with external pods, pylons, EFTs, bombs, and missiles. One exception to that was on the F-16 with wingtip missiles, which actually helped with aerodynamic/wing flutter stability for fuel efficiency, allowing it to fly a bit farther if you only put missiles on stations 1&9, but that isn't ever a combat configuration for US fighter squadrons. Moving forward, we were looking at internal weapons bays for future fighter designs after the teen series, and this was prominent in the NATO AeroE course materials even in 1980 for the academic project design study challenges in that course.

[@michaeld1170]

According to Lt. Col Tucker Hamilton, the F-35 spends a lot more time in it's top speed of Mach 1.6 than it's 4th generation counterparts that could barely fly at Mach 1.4 in combat

[@Luckie_7]

The real cap to turn rate is gonna come from manned vs unmanned, you don’t want a guy passing out from massive g force trying to do a quick turn and then throwing the jet into a town or something

[@danmallery9142]

Lower top speeds for later gen fighters has been something that has a lot of people debating. One thing that I don't remember if you pointed out is the internal weapon stowage of stealth era fighters. You must consider that the top speeds of Vietnam era planes is when the plane is "clean" or no exterior weapons or pylons. The F-4s top speed drops from 2.2 down to about 1.4 (IIRC) with a CAP (all missile) loadout. An F-22 has internal weapons bay so under a normal loadout it is still "clean" aerodynamically and therefore in combat situations, the F-22 is basically about the same top speed as the Phantom. In addition, it can super-cruise at 1.1 without afterburner making the difference even more dramatic. I don't think people realize just how exponentially better these 5th gen fighters are compared to the early jets.

[@raywhitehead730]

Turn radius, in combat , giving an advantage, depends entirely on your detecton ability and the weapons you have. For example, I once defeated a F4 on the range in a test with a sidEwinder in a helicopter. The F4 cannot possibility out turn you. It was a test.

[@Blox117]

lol if ur in a helicopter you're dead. the fighter can approach anywhere it wants especially top down where you cant hit it

[@raywhitehead730]

So how come many Russian jets have been shot down from the ground, not even moving shooters And the F35 is not the highest or fastest plane in the air?...its about detection and maneuverability, almost no jets have been shot down in thirty years in a dog fight, most shot down miles from by the jet shooting it.

[@dannypipewrench533]

2:08 You have to love that missile based short take off.

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

Good take on that topic. Technically, it mainly comes down to the intake ramps. The F-14 has went through changes that made her slower without actually changing mass (at least not significantly) or drag, and they even installed more powerful engines. Yet the top speed went down from 2.34+ (there are accounts of it reaching 2.4) to 1.88. This was done by changing the CADC program that controls the intake ramps. The same reason why the F/A-18 is "so slow" - it doesn't even have variable intake ramps in the first place, like many other modern jets. Saves weight and, much more importantly, maintenance. In the end, flying at supersonic speeds doesn't happen with stores anyway, unless it's an interceptor that's designed to be capable of that. Most multi-role jets actually struggle to get supersonic with bags and missiles or even bombs. It goes as far that the guys flying the Tornado say the M 2.2 top speed is just a nice brochure number, it can't even go M 1 - well they always fly with 2 bags and the jammer/cm pods anyway. Basically, flying at high supersonic speeds with a non supercruising fighter jet is only viable for getting out of the Danger Zone ASAP - if your fuel reserve actually allows for it.

[@zelandakhniteblade5436]

Probably the best recent example of fast jets versus slow but highly manoeverable planes comes from the Falklands War. The British Sea Harriers would sometimes get attacked by Migs but when they did, a typical response was to turn the VTOL jets downward and just let the Mig fly right past them because they could not stop or turn fast enough to keep the Harrier in focus. The Harriers could not catch the Migs but their missiles could - result, almost every dogfight was won by the British. The flip side - the British could not always intercept the Argentinian planes fast enough and several British ships were hit by Exocet missiles.

[@theScottishKoala]

This video misses out on a lot - for one, a higher launch speed gives your air to air missiles like AMRAAMs or R-77's a MUCH greater range, allowing you to control the fight. A better top speed and acceleration also gives you many more options in the event of a close in dogfight too, and importantly will let you disengage more successfully. There's a great video by former F-14 Tomcat pilot Ward Carrol that goes over why he believes fighter aircraft getting slower and slower can ONLY be a bad thing. Well worth a look

[@strakhovandrri]

Pilots of 1930's were against closed canopies too.

[@johngranato2673]

EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!

[@ClassicCase]

He's comparing "interceptors" to "fighters" which is a bit unfair since there's a difference. The interceptors of old were meant to intercept enemy turboprop and jet engine bombers (who'd be carrying nukes) and do it fast enough to a) be there in time and b) potentially pass through the enemy's screen of relatively slow (compared to the interceptor!!) escorting fighter jets. Nuclear bombers are kind of out of fashion since we have very capable surface-to-air missiles now which can do the same job as the interceptor, but without sacrificing a pilot (since the interceptor is actually a lousy fighter and attacking a bomber formation was usually suicide). On the flip side, we send nukes using similar missiles instead of as a bomb dropped from a bomber. For a 1960's interceptor though, you absolutely want to be fastest as you possibly can, shoot down the bomber and then hope you can escape just as quickly. No "dogfights" with other fighters.

[@xcr8ivex708]

I mean, it depends on what interceptor you're talking about, when it to attacking an enemy formation. And interceptors are essential for carriers and the-like. Since (for example) SM-2s can only go so far

[@cerdickjohn2385]

dogfights nowadays are nearly obsolete.

[@xcr8ivex708]

@@cerdickjohn2385 A good example of a place where dogfighting occured is Ukraine

[@Hutirati]

0:31 "it all makes sense if you're _high_ , like a pilot"

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Good research and great clips used. Very deserving of the nearly 3 million views good sir.

[@vansiar9573]

Let me guess. It's not what i think.

[@NotWhatYouThink]

Damn, what gave it away?

[@bluefox9436]

Well there are still planes like the F22 or the EF that fly faster than Vietnam era jets - the Advantage of that is that (At least if we talk about the EF) you can fire your missiles at a higher speed what means that your missiles have more energy to work with increasing it's range by quite a bit. I also strongly disagree with the point that you can't outrun AAM's or SAM's - while it's true that they peak at a much higher speed than a Aircraft they can't keep those speeds for a long time - so if you're high up in a fast plane it gets very hard - even for modern SAM systems - to hit you. While AAM's have the Advantage of mostly beeing launched closer to the target and on a higher altitude they are also slower and have less burntime than SAM's on average what makes them pretty suceptable to cranking manouvers. The next point is the seekerhead and the turning limitations of the Missile: the faster a aircraft goes the more problems the seekerhead gets as well - so if we have a plane flying at Mach 2.5 while not flying directly towards the target the missile has to find the right lead to cut into the planes flight path - and at such speeds the time window where you can fire a missile and it is actually a threat is incredibly short - if you fire too early the missile simply gets cranked and runs out of energy but if you fire too late the missile won't be able to turn into the enemies flight path. There's also a increased chance that the missile misscalculates the flight path and therefore misses the target. In summary I'd say that top speed is still important but the concept of speed probably got dropped for versatility, cost reasons or the Implementation of stealth (at leeast these are my assumptions). But I think we'll see a comeback of high altitude high speed interceptors as tensions between russia and the Nato are rising again - but this time they're hunting nuclear warheads instead of Bombers.

[@theroadbug7274]

One thing in this video I do not agree with is the length of time the U.S. was engaged in the Vietnam War. The U.S. was actively engaged for about 10 years, not 20. The French were there before that and pulled out. U.S. fighters and bombers from the U.S. were not used until after the U.S. began fighting North Vietnam.

[@nickd3157]

Its not about speed its about maneuverability is my guess.

[@belgianfried]

It's about drive

[@redacted2713]

It's about who has the best radar and missiles

[@Solnoric]

It's also about not having to build them to catch imaginary supersonic Soviet bombers that never existed but analysts imagined did.

[@rogersmith7396]

Mpg.

[@rogersmith7396]

@@Solnoric The MI Complex is good about those things.

[@PJay-wy5fx]

You learn something new every day. TIL that in WWI, a form of warfare was what is essentially a drive-by shooting... But from an airplane!

[@jeffreyhyder2429]

The F-4 is proof that you can make a brick fly if you put a big engine engine in it. The modern stuff, while slower can utilize what it has a lot better.

[@davidwhiteley3879]

Max Speed is a marketing gimmick. The max speed for an aircraft is for a clean configuration (without ordnance or pylons) and very little fuel - almost never experienced in practical combat operations. The highest speeds that will be observed for US aircraft in the past 40 years are during FCF (Functional Check Flights), which are typically performed after significant maintenance actions.